Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE TWO I Public Opinion Throughout the Union BELLIGERENT BISHOPS. Have not the bishop of London and other occupants o fthe Episco pal bench ({forgotten their Prayer Book? Notwithstanding the promise made on behalf of the Church of England by the Archbishop of Can terbury to the effect that he would facilitate the smooth working of the deceased wife’s sister bill if it be came law, Dr. Ingram and other bishops have forbidden their clergy to officiate at any such marriage as the new law authorizes. These rebellious prelates should look up their catechism, and espe cially that section which defines a man’s duty to his neighbor. 'One part of that definition runs: “To honor and obey the king, and all that are put in authority under him. ’ ’ Now, King Edward has given his as sent to the new marriage bill and has accorded it his special approval, and if the bishops are not willing to obey the law their only course is Jto tear up their Prayer Book or resign. The situation must be afford ing a large amount of malicious de light to the Non-conformists of Great Britain, for they could hardly have anticipated the companionship of Episcopal bishops in their campaign of ‘‘ passive resistance. ’ ’ —Bost on Herald. WICKHAM’S DEFEAT. For months The Journal has been urging the voters of this state to de feat every candidate for a seat in the next General Assembly who occupies the position of counsel of any rail road. We have given unanswerable reasons why this should be done. The least of these is the equivocal posi tion of the attorney himself; the greatest is the utter impossibility of serving two masters. This implied no reflection upon the integrity of the attorney. It imputed, to him no conscious wrong-doing. It simply de nied him miraculous powers; the ca pacity to be in two places at one and the same time. He could not be in the place, -which ought to be occupied by ! a faithful counsel, of whole hearted devotion to the interests of his clients, and at the same time work with an eye single to the welfare of his constituents. When the time came, as ccme it must, that the in terests of client and constituent met in head-on collision, the corporation counsel must be in a position of great embarrassment and tom by conflicting views. It is sheer non sense, if not arrant hypocrisy, to pre tend to unbiased fair-mindedness when vital questions balance between the good of the railroads and the pub lic good, when in one pocket is a huge salary and in the other merely a mandate from the voter. The man was never created with so judicial a temperament and so oblivious of the side of the slice the butter was on, to whom with restful, implicit confidence the people could look under such circumstances. It is not in hu man nature. The fight of the future is for su premacy between the railroads and WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN. their cognate influences and the rule of the people. So titanic are the powers of the former that while the ultimate issue is sure, the struggle will be severe and long contested. Strange as it may appear, it will take the whole force of government, exerted through years,.to show those who now dominate the country, that it was not for their behoof and glory and fattening the fathers established this republic. They shall have the lesson driven into their heads that the taxing power of traffic rates, which can levy a toll upon everything a man and his family use, and hence regulate that man’s life, is no longer a sovereign prerogative of a handful of Wall Street tyrants. This is the way the people of Vir ginia are now thinking. This is the way the people of the Thirty-second Senatorial District thought last week when they defeated for re-nomination Hon. Henry T. Wickham. Seldom in the history of politics has there been set before a people a question of principle more clearly defined and divested of diverting and entang ling accessories. With nothing against the ability or integrity of either Wickham or Gravatt, with everything in favor of the former, so far as ex perience in public affairs goes, he went down to defeat because the people were determined to speak with no uncertain sound upon the question, the burning question of railroad dom ination. It is needless to add the congrat ulations of The Journal to the sturdy voters of the Thirty-second Senato rial District of Virginia. They de serve, and will receive, the applause of the entire state. —Richmond Jour nal. SHALL PARTY OR PRINCIPLE RULE? In this section of the country there is in politics no more picturesque and interesting figure than Tom Watson. When Hoke {Smith was elected Gov ernor of Georgia it was said that Tom Watson elected him. In Missis sippi Tom Watson supported Vai da man for the senate against John Sharpe Williams. Williams won, though the contest was sharp. The power of Watson is admitted by Wil liams, who claims that between fifteen and twenty thousand votes in Missis sippi were directly influenced by Watson against him in favor of Var daman. Though Watson is the best Democrat of them all, there is a dis tinct inclination among editors and other public men to sneer at Watson. The correctness of the principles he stands for is not confessed, his in fluence is discounted and he is be littled at every turn, but all of this fails to fease the Georgia Cracker, and when it comes to a show-down he doesn’t fail to demonstrate that liv ing principles are more lasting than hollow misrepresentations. The cheap references made to Wat son by demagogic detractors lay to him the charge of attempting to wreck the Democratic party. That such appeals have weight cannot be doubted, because they catch the dem agogue, the shallow pate and rattle brain. It would be interesting to know in what way the Democratic party could be wrecked by Tom Wat son. Watson doesn’t care for the name, perhaps. And the name is all that holds the band together. Peo ple are Democrats without knowing why or for what.. If any one sticks his head up as opposing the organization he gets it thumped because he isn’t pleased with the organization. It doesn’t make any difference if he is advo cating and fighting for better things than the organization stands for; it is lese majeste to speak out in meet ing or to withdraw from the com munion with the saints in theft in sensate time-serving. These are revolutionary times. Men engaged in the habit of thinking are beginning to see the folly of staying in the nominally Democratic camp, whether the organization be right or wrong, whether it be pledged to right eous principles or sold to selfish ends of leaders. Henry Watterson, the veteran ob server of Kentucky, has recently de clared, “I do not dare say that party government is a failure, but I do say that party government, claiming to be the representative of public opin ion, is a humbug. It is a mischiev ous humbug.” “What are we to think?” asks the Atlanta Constitution, “when such ex pressions come from such an ancient and arch Democrat?” Whatever may be the result of the operation it is time to think. The comment of the Constitution is not in line with Mr. Watterson’s declara tion, but continues interestingly as follows: • “In other words, according to Mi. Watterson’s view, party government no longer represents the people, nor have the people any longer any party government. What is it, then? It is an .assumption of the reins by all the people, regardless cf party lines, of party principles and party plat forms. “Let’s look for a moment over in Mississippi. Following the Senatorial primary we find the successful candi date, John Sharp Williams, charge ing that Vardaman was in league with the former antagonists of organized Democracy in the state, and admon ishing the people that the closeness us the contest indicated that the old line Democracy had better look out, or ‘the goblins would get it.’ At Yazoo City, following his nomination, Mr. Williams said he first looked up on the contest as a friendly competi tion between two Democrats, but ‘I soon began to be undeceived and to discover that there was an effort be ing made by my competitor to play to the Populists.’ “Continuing, Mr. Williams said: “ ‘This was shown by his introduc tion of Tom Watson as a man “easier to criticize than to answer.” I did not hear his introduction, but I have been told that was substantially the language of it. This was followed by a letter of eulogy to Watson, which was published by Watson in his magazine, and then by words of euloey written concerning my com petitor by Watson. “ ‘The intent of all this was ob vious, but I continued to hope until after the primary that it would fail of results, believing that the men who had come back to the Democratic par ty to participate in its party election had come in good faith, and would decline 1o be led by Tom Watson, the leader of the national Populists, or the leader of any other party. The result, however, showed that I was mistaken. My competitor re ceived the fifteen or twenty thousand Populist votes of this state almost en masse. They took theft marching or ders from Thomas Watson. “ ‘There is one great benefit that has been attained by this lesson taught by the late primary. The plan of Tom- Watson and his adherents to capture the Democratic organization in this state by holding the balance of power between Democrats came so very near being successful that the plan itself has been exposed and the eyes of Democrats vho love their party have been opened. They will not be caught napping again.’ “Yet, further on, there is just a suspicion of doubt in what he says: “ ‘Yet here are fifteen or twenty thousand men participating in a Dem ocratic primary in the state of Mis sissippi who receive and acknowledge marching orders from Tom Watson. What are they going to do when the presidential election comes and Mr. Bryan is nominated by the Democrats and Mr. Watson by the Populists? From whom are they going to take their marching orders then?’ ” Tallahassee Sun. WHY TAFT IS THE ADMINIS TRATION CANDIDATE. Since Secretary Taft has been talk ing it is apparent why he has been selected by the present government to become the government that is to be. If Mr. Taft has any original ideas or sentiments he keeps them careful ly to himself. His speeches all say in effect: “If you like what I say, reserve your applause. I’m only the hum ble phonograph which delivers to you the Great Voice. If you want me for president, you won’t get me; you will get the owner of the Voice, of which 1 am the meek and lowly echo.” A candidate for the highest office in the land who will thus bemean himself is not the sort of candidate that the people want. The president of the United States ought to represent the people, not any individual; and an aspirant for that office must make his canvass as a man, and not as a phonograph. If Taft is willing to be Mr. Roose velt ’s man before the people, he would never be his own man or the people’s man in the White House.—>N. Y. American.